On 2014年08月13日 10:03, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:53:21PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 03:00:55PM +0800, Lan Tianyu wrote: >>> Commit da3c6647(I2C/ACPI: Clean up I2C ACPI code and Add CONFIG_I2C_ACPI >>> config) adds a new kernel config I2C_ACPI and make I2C core built in >>> when the config is selected. This is wrong because distributions >>> etc generally compile I2C as a module and the commit broken that. >>> This patch is to make I2C core able to be a module when I2C_ACPI is >>> selected. Original issue the commit da3c6647 tried to avoid will >>> be fixed in ACPICA and it's rarely triggered during unloading module. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> I wonder if we can do >> >> depends on I2C=y >> >> here? If I understand it right, then we only build the ACPI_I2C if I2C >> is compiled into the kernel. That way the problem da3c6647 tried to >> solve doens't re-appear. >> >> We can later on relax this once ACPICA has been fixed. Thoughts? > > I had the same idea yet my travel to Chicago interrupted thinking about > it further. Once I get rid of my jetlag, I'll have a closer look. Unless > you already came up with the perfect solution until then, of course ;) > Hi Mika & Wolfram: I have one concern about "depends on I2C=y". If distribution config file selects I2C core as a module, the original code can enumerate I2C slave devices from ACPI table. But now I2C_ACPI depends on I2C core built in, the I2C module can't enumerate devices from ACPI table. This maybe a regression for distribution? -- Best regards Tianyu Lan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
